And I have explained to you how lenders/investors would rate the "no fans ever" as a risk factor. It wouldnt be one, cos there would be no point in having any ground built. Ergo, no risk.
You have demonstrated you have little idea about how, and why, commercial property is funded/managed/built, but refuse to acknowledge the actual truth of the reality from someone who has more than a passing interest in the mechanics of it.
If you are interested, I could explain said mechanics behind the Dell Computer distribution hub build in Eastern Europe a few decades ago. Quite a page turner.
I think you are being silly, tbh.
I'm not claiming to be the commercial property expert that you are. I don't think I need to be a commercial property expert of your standing to assert that a continuation of the current ban on stadia attendance would be of concern to investors in stadia development should the ban remain in place.
In fact, you go on to state that a continuation of the current ban would mean that investors wouldn't even entertain investing in stadia at all should the current ban remain in place, and I agree with you. That really is what has underpinned my argument; that stadium bans are bad news to investors in stadia!
It doesn't even have to go to the extreme of never allowing any fans in attendance ever again. Just social distancing measures have the potential to turn a stadia allowing attendances of 50,000 into attendances allowing 25,000 etc.
Admittedly, I don't know what the future holds. But it's silly for us to agree that a continual ban on stadia attendance would put an end to stadia investment, and then claim that I am being ridiculous for suggesting that there is risk in stadia investment.